Bush's Racist Slur (Was Re: Pak aims to halve debt servicing in 3 yrs)

Kendall Clark kendall at monkeyfist.com
Fri Jan 11 13:15:27 PST 2002



>>>>> "ulhas" == Ulhas Joglekar <uvj at vsnl.com> writes:

>> Is the monosyllable "Pak" not perceived as an epithet?

>>

>> Doug

ulhas> No. 'Pakis' is an epithet. Bush used it few days ago.

Well, since it came up:

Bush's Racist Slur

by Kendall CLARK and Bijan PARSIA

Thursday, 10 January 2002

Fresh from yet another multiweek vacation, President Bush turned

his attention to the very dangerous India-Pakistan

conflict. Speaking to reporters about the deteriorating regional

conflict on Monday, 7 January, President Bush said,

I don't believe the situation is defused yet, but I do believe

there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both

the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems

without going to war.

The obvious and immediate response is to wonder how much worse he

wants the situation to become. Using a well-known ethnic slur to

describe one side of the conflict is unlikely to defuse anything.

Surely any other modern American president, each one of whom has

been very less verbally inept than Bush, would have been taken, had

he said the same or similar, to be signaling an American preference

for the side not slurred. Given the boundless, miasmic fog of

verbal expression which Bush inhabits, one might conclude that it

was merely a slip, of tongue or brain, and not worth further

thought.

Both AP and Reuters wire reports of the incident include curious

characterizations -- respectively: "The term 'Pakis' is considered

by many Pakistanis, particularly in Great Britain, to be

offensive"; and "Most Americans are unaware of the sensitivity of

the term. In Britain, however, it is considered an ethnic slur

toward Pakistanis who emigrated there in large numbers in the 1960s

and '70s" -- of the provenance and history of the term, as if the

harm were to be mitigated by claims about linguistic obscurity.

And, generally, supporters of the president have defended his use

of the slur by the same tactic: it's not problematic because most

Americans are unaware that "Paki" is offensive.

This defense is wholly inadequate: it misleads and is irrelevant.

First, the term is not new, and while its origin is British, that

is a local usage of rather universal reach -- the British media's

global spread is second only to that of US media. And, as Bush

likes to say, when it suits him and his interests, the US and UK

are culturally very close. One of the earliest examples occurred in

the Guardian, in 1964, and continually in British media throughout

the 60s and 70s. It occurred in US media very early as well,

specifically in a racist context -- Charlottesville, Virginia's

Daily Progress reported, in 1972 (!), on racial violence against

Asian immigrants, which was (and is still) termed

"Paki-bashing". Anti-immigrant violence has been reported in the US

regularly since that time, and the terms "Paki" and "Paki-bashing"

are not as obscure as Bush's erstwhile defenders suggest.

Especially if among any of the president's staff can be counted

even one careful reader of the New York Times or anyone who listens

to or reads the public remarks of VP Cheney, who referred to

Pakistanis as -- in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press

on 16 September -- "Paks". The Times ran in response two William

Safire columns and an editorial "chiding", as Safire put it, Cheney

for such usage and instructing accurately on the use of "Pak" and

"Paki" as insulting racial slurs. And, while Bush can hardly be

faulted for paying little attention to his VP, Safire clearly and,

to the point, recently made it abundantly clear, for whomever in

Bush's administration was listening, that "Paki" is

unacceptable. Now Bush may not be faulted for not reading the New

York Times; he has, as they say, people to do that for him. But the

very recently discussion of this issue in the Times clearly

establishes the bounds of acceptable usage of such terms, which is

to say, using these terms is unacceptable.

But, second, the ignorance or obscurity defense, even if sound, is

irrelevant. In diplomacy and politics, as under the law, ignorance

is not an absolute defense. Sometimes it's no defense at all. The

question is neither whether most -- or, strictly speaking, any;

not, of course, including the millions of Pakistani American

citizens, about whom more below -- Americans know that "Paki" is a

racist slur, nor is it whether Bush knew that "Paki" is a racist

slur. The only relevant question is whether Bush should have known

that "Paki" is a racist slur, and, further, whether, having known

it, such knowledge would have prevented him from using it.

As to the first question, yes, Bush should have known, assuming he

did not, that "Paki" is a racist slur. The dictates of diplomacy

alone, to say nothing of moral decency, suggest he should have

known, as, for example, every president who dealt with -- the not

particularly analogous, geopolitically -- situation of South

African apartheid knew that, whatever their true views of Mandela

or the ANC, the word "kafir" was a racist slur and was to be

avoided at all costs.

One might hope, as well, that the person who occupies the office of

US president, whatever else his flaws and failings, would take

advantage of the incalculable resources such an office offers to

familiarize himself with the known locations of the neighborhood's

mines and minefields. Are we really to believe that this is Bush's

very first time, ever, to use this word? Has anyone on his staff

warned against its use in the months since September 11? It is not,

after all, a particularly ready contraction of "Pakistani", nor is

it the kind of thing that one hears used normatively -- that is,

its context of use in US media are almost always precisely as

racist slur -- often in US media. Is it something that the Bush

circle uses privately? If so, that some or no Americans know if it

as such is not at all to the point.

A White House spokesperson responded to Bush's comments by offering

further comment -- "The president has great respect for Pakistan,

the Pakistani people, and the Pakistani culture. Pakistan has been

a strong member of the international coalition in the war against

terrorism" -- which only sought to evade the issue, which said much

less than was required by the bounds of minimal decency, and which

conspicuously failed to apologize -- Compare: when Bush

indecorously called the US campaign against bin Laden a "crusade"

the White House apologized swiftly and with good reason -- or

withdraw the slur.

Whatever else one might say about Bush, it is conceivable that his

use of "Paki" was merely a verbal slip, the result of being briefed

to never say "Paki" (though the lack of an immediate correction

from Bush tends to weigh against it having been a pure slip). Those

of us who inhabit fogs of personal expression do make such

mistakes. What is truly objectionable, however, is that decent

people, having made such mistakes, apologize and offer to make

amends, to remedy harms caused, to do, in short, what, if anything,

may be done to reassert and reaffirm publicly the dignity and worth

of those who have been wronged.

Bush has done and will be doing none of these -- and very

conspicuously so. Thus there are only three possibilities:

First, Bush used the term knowingly and premeditatedly, that is, he

knew the term is a racist slur, and he meant to use it as a racist

slur; in which case, he is not only a racist but dangerously

unhinged.

Second, Bush used the term accidentally; that is, he knew that it

is a racist slur and its use was a verbal or mental slip. Such

things happen, alas. However much we might wish to have a president

more in control of the modes of his personal expression, there are

greater sins. If this is the case, however, one might assume -- if

for no other reason than for the sakes of American citizens and

residents who are of Pakistani origin -- that Bush would have

apologized, whether tersely or profusely, whether immediately or

subsequently, whether directly or by proxy. The lack of any mode of

redress speaks louder than apologists and defenders of Bush's use

of the term realize.

Third, Bush used it purposively but did not know, consciously, that

it was a racist slur; in which case, his ignorance is either

defensible or it is not. I find it hard to believe that his

ignorance is defensible, but, in either case, if the term was used

innocently of racist intent, I am equally hard pressed to

understand why Bush has not apologized and sought to redress the

harms he's done.

In the present US climate the plight of those of South Asian or

Middle Eastern origin (or stereotypical appearance) is fragile at

best. In addition to facing whatever real dangers the rest of us

face, whether from terrorists or from our own government's

contortions, these persons face further threats and dangers of

person, including affronts to and assaults upon their basic dignity

and respect. That Bush has -- intentionally or no -- made life more

difficult for them, and that he's done so without the slightest

interest in or attempt at redress, is simply intolerable.

###

Bush's Racist Slur

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/804

© Copyright 1999-2001 The Monkeyfist Collective



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list